Research policy

This policy applies to articles, guides, category pages, visual stories, headlines, summaries, structured data, and substantial updates. It governs both manually prepared work and work supported by automated research or drafting tools.

We prefer original documents and direct evidence: official notices, legislation, regulatory publications, peer-reviewed papers, datasets, transcripts, public records, event organisers, and direct statements from responsible institutions. Reputable reporting and specialist analysis may add context, but they do not replace an available primary source for a central claim.

Search snippets, social posts, promotional copy, anonymous reposts, and aggregator summaries are discovery leads only unless independently verified.

For time-sensitive reporting, we record when the source was published and distinguish that date from the date of the underlying event. A daily news review uses its stated India Standard Time window. Late updates, corrections, and older background sources are labelled so that they are not presented as new developments.

Before publication, we check names, dates, locations, numerical claims, source status, quotation context, and whether the stated event has actually occurred. Important claims should be corroborated when a second reliable source is reasonably available. Conflicting credible accounts are described rather than silently resolved.

Coverage of research identifies the institution or publication, study design, sample size, material limitations, and the difference between association and causation. Company-funded studies, commissioned surveys, projections, and self-reported results remain clearly attributed. A single study is not presented as settled guidance.

Articles name the evidence needed to understand a claim. To keep the visitor experience internal and free from third-party redirects, public pages do not send readers to external source websites. Source URLs, access dates, publication timing, and research notes may be retained in private editorial provenance records for verification and corrections.

Automated tools may help discover sources, organize notes, compare claims, draft text, or create illustrations. They are not accepted as factual sources. Every publishable claim must still be supported by opened evidence, and generated wording must be checked for invented facts, false certainty, copied structure, unsafe advice, and cross-publication contamination.

We write in our own structure and voice. Direct quotations remain limited, accurately represented, and attributed. We do not disguise copied material through superficial rewriting. When an article synthesizes several sources, it must explain the connection rather than simply list their claims.

Health, safety, scams, personal finance, regulation, and similar subjects receive heightened review. We avoid personalized instructions, guaranteed outcomes, diagnosis, treatment claims, and unsupported urgency. Relevant limitations and uncertainty appear near the claim they qualify.

A credible correction request triggers a review of the source record and published wording. We correct material errors and preserve a revision trail where the change affects meaning. Research questions and evidence challenges may be submitted through the contact page or sent to info@lifestylesjournal.com.